BANK OF AMERICA: Calif. Consumer Sues Over "Live Check" Loans-------------------------------------------------------------A California consumer has filed a proposed class action against Bank of America and MBNA Corporation for making knowingly false and misleading statements in their "live check" loan solicitations which intentionally concealed numerous fees and conditions.

The lawsuit exposes the banks' deceptive efforts to induce consumers to open or draw upon a line of credit via a Live Check Loan Offer (i.e., access checks, convenience checks or balance transfer checks).

"Big banks are deceptively hiding fees and charges from unsuspecting consumers in a classic bait and switch," said Azra Z. Mehdi of Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP. "The banks' false and misleading claim that these checks are 'just like any other' is designed to trick consumers."

The complaint alleges that the banks falsely claim that the check sent to consumers is "just like any other check" and is usable immediately, using language such as "Valid Immediately," "Act Now," "Do It Now," "Use Today," or "Don't Wait," among others, to suggest that customers need simply to write the check. The banks also misleadingly state that recipients can "borrow up to the full amount" available in the "live check," according to the complaint.

However, the banks fail to disclose in these solicitations that their proposed extension of credit is subject to a number of hidden conditions and fees, including a credit evaluation and possible resulting credit denial that does not occur until after the customer has already relied upon defendants' representation of available credit and has then endorsed, cashed, deposited, or otherwise attempted to negotiate the "live check."

The complaint also alleges that the defendant banks' Live Check Loan Offer falsely suggests that checks may be used up to a certain amount, when in fact using the checks for the stated amount will result in defendants declining to honor the check and imposing undisclosed additional fees or charges.

The defendants' unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices, have caused consumers to lose money via returned check charges, overdrawn account charges, increased interest rates or other fees and charges.

The proposed class action covers the period of October 14, 2001 to the present. The case is currently pending in the Northern District of California before the Honorable Charles Breyer.

CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE: Faces Labor Suit Filed by Mercy Workers------------------------------------------------------------ Sacramento Mercy employees commenced a class-action lawsuit with the San Francisco Superior Court against Catholic Healthcare West, claiming that CHW owes them money because they were not allowed to take meal and rest breaks, The Sacramento Bee reports.

The three plaintiffs are:

1. Rhonda Cherin 2. Joanne Underwood 3. Patricia Thomas

The plaintiffs also want back pay for thousands of other CHW nurses and medical technicians working at the hospital system.The San Francisco-based CHW, SacBee's Gilbert Chan explains, is the parent of the Sacramento-area Mercy hospitals. CHW employs 50,000 workers at 42 state hospitals and medical centers.

The suit seeks compensation for current and former CHW workers since January 2004, alleging that employees "were regularly required to work through their daily meal . . . period without CHW compensating them."

In a statement, CHW officials said: "CHW is committed to providing our employees with the work environment, tools and resources they need to provide excellent care. We strive to provide meal and rest periods consistent with law."

Mr. Chan writes that a rash of litigation has been filed over back pay for missed breaks, following an April ruling by the state Supreme Court that expanded the penalties and shifted legal expenses.

Sutter Health and state labor officials are conducting an audit of payroll and time cards of about 4,500 employees at five Sacramento-area hospitals. The report says that this audit could lead to a multi-million-dollar payout.

SacBee explains that under the law, workers must receive a 10-minute rest period every four hours and a 30-minute meal break for every five hours of work. Employers must compensate workers for an hour's pay every day the law is violated. A violation occurs if the rest break is not taken within the fourth hour and the meal within the fifth -- even if the worker takes the break later in the shift.

According to the report, no wage claims have been filed against Mercy or CHW with the state. Workers can pursue four years of back pay in a lawsuit, but only three years through the state.

Chad Schwartz, Esq., attorney for the Mercy workers, told SacBee that more than 100 CHW nurses and medical technicians have contacted him.

According to Star Phoenix, the "Chocolate Makers Class Action" comes in the wake of an alleged conspiracy currently being investigated by authorities.

The report recounts that six months ago, an anonymous company approached the Canadian Competition Bureau and sought immunity from prosecution in exchange for information on an alleged scandal involving consumer pricing of chocolate in the country. The anonymous company provided testimony from one of its top executives and other employees, as well as correspondence in connection with a high-level price-fixing scandal within the industry.

Subsequently, the bureau began the ongoing investigation into the offices of Hershey's, Mars, Nestle, as well as food distributor ITWAL, in November.

Evatt Merchant, the lawyer heading the class action, said that the chocolate companies allegedly worked together to inflate market prices in a manner contrary to Canadian competitive pricing.

Mr. Merchant encourages any consumer that has purchased a chocolate bar or any related product to get involved with the suit. It's not likely consumers will receive compensation for every Smartie, Kit Kat, or chocolate kiss, but Merchant said there is a possibility that the companies will be forced to sell their goods at below-market prices for a certain period if they win their case.

COLORADO: Governor Wants to be Co-Defendant in Property Tax Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------Gov. Bill Ritter is seeking to become a co-defendant in a class action filed by the Mesa County Commission and others to overturn his controversial property tax, education-funding law known as Senate Bill 199, Nike Saccone and Le Roy Standish of The Daily Sentinel reports.

In a motion filed earlier this month with a Denver district court, Gov. Ritter has asserted his right to defend the 2007 state law in question because of his constitutional mandate to enforce state laws.

Dubbed the "mill levy freeze," Senate Bill 199 prevents school district property tax rates from falling when they otherwise would. Without the mill levy freeze, school district tax rates would fall to compensate for increases in the properties' values.

In his motion to become a co-defendant, Gov. Ritter argues that if the court rules that the law is unconstitutional under the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights, which requires voter approval of all tax increases, "it would significantly affect the state's education and fiscal interests," according to The Daily Sentinel report.

Mark Grueskin, Esq., a private attorney representing the governor's office, explains that his client has requested to intervene in the case to make sure that the correct agency is the target of the lawsuit, not just the Colorado Department of Education.

Mr. Grueskin pointed out that "the state has an interest in defending the constitutionality of the legislation the General Assembly passed and the governor signed." He also pointed out that his client's motion merely argues that the governor is better positioned to defend against the lawsuit than the Colorado Department of Education.

The Daily Sentinel reports that the Mesa County Commission entered the lawsuit back in November 2007. It was originally initiated by the conservative Independence Institute, arguing the mill levy freeze forced certification of incorrect school district tax rates.

CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Appeals Third Circuit Ruling in "Graden" Case---------------------------------------------------------------Conexant Systems, Inc. appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court a ruling entered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in which it vacated an order dismissing a purported class action against the company. The class-action lawsuit alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

On February 2005, the company and certain of its current and former officers and the company's Employee Benefits Plan Committee were named as defendants in the lawsuit. It was filed on behalf of all persons who were participants in the company's 401(k) Plan during a specified class period.

The suit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA, as amended, to the Plan and the participants in the Plan. The defendants believe these charges are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the litigation.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Aug. 11, 2005. On Oct. 12, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case.

On March 31, 2006, the judge dismissed the case and ordered it closed. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on April 17, 2006.

The appellate argument was held on April 19, 2007. On July 31, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the District Court's order dismissing the Graden complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings.

On Nov. 17, 2007, the defendants filed a Renewed Motion to Dismiss with the U.S. District Court for New Jersey.

On Dec. 4, 2007, the defendants also filed a petition for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court with respect to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, according to the company's Feb. 5, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 28, 2007.

The suit is "Graden v. Conexant Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-00695-SRC-TJB," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler, with referral to Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.

Judge Rosen also approved a separate $47-million settlement forcurrent and former employees who invested in Delphi throughtheir retirement plans. The settlements will require approvalfrom the bankruptcy court.

The lead plaintiffs in the shareholder class include theMississippi Public Employees Retirees System and the TeachersRetirement System of Oklahoma.

According to an update from The Detroit News, the shareholder-plaintiffs have also decided not to seek a judgment against Delphi's advisers.

According to Feb. 1, 2008 filing with the U.S. District Court for the District of Detroit, the investors dismissed claims against BBK Ltd ., SETECH Inc . and JPMorgan Chase & Co., which represented the shareholders.

With the dismissal, all class-action securities fraud cases involving Delphi have been resolved, said Hannah Greenwald, Esq., of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP of New York.

FIRST COMMAND: Lawsuit Notices Sent to 179,000 Service Members--------------------------------------------------------------Claims administration company Gilardi & Co., LLC, has mailed class-action notices to about 179,000 current, retired and former service members who qualify to be part of a lawsuit against First Command Financial Planning, Air Force Times reports.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 1, 2007, Judge Irma Gonzalez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California certified as class action the suit filed against First Command Financial Planning.

The lawsuit is the consolidation of two complaints filed in January 2005 against First Command Financial Planning in federal courts in California and Kentucky. The suit -- filed by two soldiers and their spouses, and two sailors -- accuses First Command of using deceptive practices to lure military personnel to invest in a 10- to 15-year plan that allegedly reaped billions for the firm at the expense of military personnel.

According to Air Force Times, the plaintiffs seek a refund of the 50% sales load that each paid during the first year they owned a systematic investment plan through First Command.

The report says those who want to be included in the class-action lawsuit do not have to take any action after receiving the notice. Attorneys representing service members in the suit will prosecute the claims at no expense to members of the class. If any benefits are obtained as a result of the class action, those in the class will be entitled to share in them after deductions for costs and legal fees.

However, if the court rules against the class, members will be bound by that ruling, and any legal rights against First Command will be terminated, the report notes.

Air Force Times says that First Command denies that it used any devices, schemes or artifices to defraud or engage in any acts or practices that operated as fraud. The company also contends that investors are barred from recovering fees in court because the systematic investment plan sales loads were disclosed to them beforehand and that investors assumed the risk of any loss based on advisory documents provided to them.

The plaintiffs contend that First Command entered into a settlement with the NASD (now the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) that made restitution to clients who started and ended their investment plans within a five-year period but failed to look after the interests of current clients.

Under the terms of the Dec. 15, 2004 settlement, First Command did not admit or deny any wrongdoing but agreed to pay a $12-million fine, $4 million of which was set aside to pay restitution to those who opened and closed a systematic investment plan between Jan. 1, 1999, and Dec. 15, 2004, and who paid an effective sales charge of more than 5 percent.

Almost two weeks before the NASD settlement was finalized, First Command announced it would no longer sell systematic investment plans and would seek to expand its client base beyond the military community.

Those eligible to take part in the suit must meet these three criteria:

1. They must have made a systematic investment plan payment and paid a 50% sales charge on the money placed into the plan through First Command during the period from Jan. 31, 2000, through Dec. 31, 2004. That includes initial investments, as well as increasing an investment on an existing SIP during that time and having paid 50% on the increased amount;

2. They must have still owned the systematic investment plan on Dec. 15, 2004; and

3. They must not have terminated their plans within 45 days of purchase in order to receive a full refund of the sales charge.

Service members who do not want to be included in the class-action lawsuit for any reason can fill out an opt-out form. It must be postmarked by March 21, 2008, with full name, address and signature.

People also can send a written statement noting: "I do not want to be a part of the plaintiff class in McPhail v. First Command, No. 05cv0179 IEG (JMA)." The request should be signed, with name and address printed below the signature, and mailed to:

Questions about the notice should be addressed to the claims administrator or the class counsel, or by calling toll-free (866) 511-8879.

Those who think they are eligible to participate in the class action but have not received a notice can request it through the toll-free number or the Web site. Requests can also be mailed to the post office box listed above, as well as other correspondence or address changes.

GOLDEN GATE: Faces Calif. Suit Over Park Access for the Disabled----------------------------------------------------------------The Golden Gate National Recreational Area and the National Park Service face a class action filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which accuses them of discriminating against individuals with disabilities by denying them access to GGNRA parks.

The lawsuit was filed by the Disability Rights Advocates on Jan. 31, 2008. It was brought on behalf of all people with mobility and vision disabilities who have been denied access to GGNRA parks.

Aside from GGNRA and NPS, other defendants in the suit include:

-- Brian O'Neill, General Superintendent of GGNRA; and

-- Mary Bomar, Director of NPS.

GGNRA has been obliged to provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities, since the passage of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Spanning over 75,000 acres of land and water from San Mateo to Marin County, GGNRA is the country's largest national park in an urban area and attracts more than 13 million visitors a year. The park includes national landmarks as Alcatraz, the Presidio, the Marin Headlands, Muir Woods, Crissy Field, and Forts Point and Mason. It contains 1,273 plant and animal species, encompasses 59 miles of bay and ocean shoreline, and has military fortifications that span centuries of California history from the Spanish conquistadors to Cold War-era Nike missile sites.

"What makes this case especially frustrating," said Laurence Paradis, executive director of DRA, "is that we have been working in good faith with the GGNRA for over a year in an effort to achieve a plan to bring this agency into compliance with federal law. In the end, all we obtained was another year of delayed access for people with disabilities."

DRA attorney Julia Pinover, Esq., echoed the sentiment, "This is not rocket science. We're not seeking accessibility in the most remote part of the Amazon, we're talking about long overdue accessible restrooms, visitors' centers, parking, exhibits, trails and programs in the San Francisco Bay Area. This case is really about how our national parks systematically exclude people with disabilities and, in doing so, fail to fulfill our local and national policy of inclusion."

Although access requirements took effect in 1973, now, in 2008, GGNRA still does not provide basic accommodations to allow access.

Plaintiff Lori Gray, a wheelchair user with a visual impairment, organizes and leads outdoors trips for groups of people with various disabilities to facilitate outdoor experiences and the enjoyment of the natural wonders of the Bay Area. Ms. Gray stated, "It's astonishing that decades after the Rehabilitation Act was passed, the GGNRA still won't make the most basic accommodations, never mind considering the possibility that groups of people with disabilities might occasionally travel together and need group accommodations."

Co-plaintiff Ann Sieck, like many Bay Area residents, has a life-long love of the outdoors and is frustrated that she cannot enjoy what GGRNA has to offer. Ms. Sieck said, "The pervasive access barriers discourage people with disabilities and their families from visiting the parks. I think many people have just given up."

The suit is "Gray et al v. Golden Gate National Recreational Area et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-00722-EDL," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte presiding.

The terms of the settlement, which includes no admission of liability or wrongdoing by HCC or any other defendants, provide for a full and complete release of all claims in the litigation and payment of $10 million to be paid into a settlement fund, pending approval by the Court of a plan of distribution. The amount will be paid by the Company's directors' and officers' liability insurers, and will not have a material effect on HCC's financial results.

The suit, "Bristol County Retirement System v. HCC InsuranceHoldings Inc et al., Case No. 4:07-cv-00801," was filed on March 8, 2007. The company is named as a defendant in the putative class action along with certain current and former officers and directors.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities between May 3, 2005, and Nov. 17, 2006, inclusive.

The action purports to assert claims arising out of impropermanipulation of option grant dates, alleging violation ofSections 20(a) and 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act, aswell as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The plaintiff also purports to assert a claim for violation ofSection 14(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act and Rules 14a-1 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiff seeks recovery of compensatory damages for the putative class and costs and expenses.

On Sept. 21, 2007, jointly with the other defendants, thecompany filed a motion to dismiss the suit.

On January 9, 2008, the company announced that it had reached a settlement in the shareholder derivative litigation regarding the stock option matter. With the recent announcement, all private securities litigation pending against the Company regarding the stock option matter has been resolved.

Once approved, the settlement will resolve all class action litigation pending against the Company, as well as its former and current directors and officers.

"The settlement of this class action lawsuit is another step in the direction of putting the entire option issue behind us. We are now waiting to hear the Securities and Exchange Commission's ruling on the option issue, which we hope will finally and completely resolve the matter," HCC Chief Executive Officer Frank J. Bramanti said.

The suit is "Bristol County Retirement System v. HCC InsuranceHoldings Inc. et al., Case No. 4:07-cv-00801," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas under Judge Sim Lake.

HYDROFLO INC.: N.C. Court Sets April 10 Certification Hearing-------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina has set a certification hearing -- for the purposes of the $425,000 in cash plus accrued interest settlement, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure -- on April 10, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. for the lawsuit "Russell Todd Huttenstine et al. v. Dennis Mast et al., Case No. 4:05-CV-00152-F(3)."

The proposed class includes all persons who acquired the common stock of HydroFlo, Inc. during the period from July 18, 2005, through and including Oct. 26, 2005.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is on March 13, 2008. Deadline to file claims is on April 28, 2008.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina will hold a hearing on April 10, 2008, at 10:30 a.m. in the courtroom of the Honorable James C. Fox.

Case Background

In 2005, the Rosen Law Firm P.A. filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all investors who purchased common stock of HydroFlo, Inc. (OTC BB: HYRF) during the period from July 18, 2005 through October 26, 2005, inclusive (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 28, 2005).

The complaint charges that the defendants violated sections10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing a series of falseand misleading press releases to the market during the ClassPeriod.

The complaint charges that the defendants misrepresented the type, terms, amendments, demand, and revenue projections from certain agreements between MARTI and EYI Industries and its subsidiaries during the Class Period. In addition, the complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented the existence and nature of certain agreements with government entities involved in the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

As a result of the Company's materially false and misleading statements to the market, according to the complaint, the priceof HydroFlo stock was artificially inflated in the Class Period.

The suit is "Russell Todd Huttenstine et al. v. Dennis Mast et al., Case No. 4:05-CV-00152-F(3)," filed with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

IMERGENT INC: Hearing on $2.8M Settlement Slated for March 19 -------------------------------------------------------------A March 19, 2008 final hearing was scheduled for the $2.8-million settlement of a consolidated securities fraud class action against iMergent, Inc.

Case Background

On March 8, 2005, an action was filed by Elliott Firestone, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, against the Company, certain current and former officers, and certain current and former directors, with the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Case No. 2:05cv00204 DB.

Additional complaints were then filed against the Company alleging similar claims. The court ordered that the cases be consolidated and on Nov. 23, 2005, allowed a "consolidated amended complaint for violation of federal securities laws" against the Company, certain current and former officers, and certain current and former directors, together with the former independent auditors for the Company, Grant Thornton LLP, as defendants.

The amended consolidated complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws claiming that the defendants either made or were responsible for making material misleading statements and omissions, providing inaccurate financial information, and failing to make proper disclosures which required the Company to restate its financial results.

The suit seeks unspecified damages, including attorneys' fees and costs.

Although the action was determined by the court to be the "consolidated action," a separate complaint was filed in October 2005 by Hillel Hyman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, against the Company, certain current and former officers, certain current and former directors, and Grant Thornton LLP. This group in subsequent filings refers to itself as the "accounting restatement group" and alleges that it should be determined by the court to be the consolidated plaintiff as it properly alleges a class period consistent with timing necessary to raise a claim based upon the restatement of financial results announced by the Company. The second complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws by the Company and Grant Thornton LLP.

The Company disputes the allegations raised in both actions, but has not filed substantive responsive pleadings.

On February 28, 2006, at a "Status Conference," the court determined that the complaint filed by the accounting restatement group should be substituted as the new consolidated amended complaint.

On April 3, 2006, the court entered a consent order substituting Mr. Hyman as the lead plaintiff.

Settlement

On Sept. 19, 2007, the Company and the plaintiffs entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding settlement of all claims in the litigation.

The Company and the plaintiffs have filed a stipulation of settlement seeking court approval of the terms.

The MOU provides, in part, that:

-- within 15 business days following the court’s preliminary approval of the settlement, defendants and/or their insurers shall pay $2,800,000 to the plaintiffs (the settlement payment is within policy limits of the directors and officers insurance policy maintained by the Company);

-- the court order will include a provision dismissing the Company and individual defendants from the litigation with prejudice;

-- the court order will include a provision that bars and enjoins Grant Thornton LLP from prosecuting any claims against the Company and individual defendants arising out of, or based upon, or related to the facts alleged in the complaint or that could have been alleged in the litigation;

-- the Company and individual defendants shall assign to the plaintiffs any and all claims or causes of action that they now have against Grant Thornton LLP, including, but not limited to, any claims or causes of action for accounting malpractice or breach of contract;

-- the Company and individual defendants shall cooperate with the plaintiffs in the continuing prosecution of the litigation against Grant Thornton LLP; and

-- the Company is required to provide documentary evidence supporting the claims against Grant Thornton LLP to the plaintiffs.

The failure of the court to approve the terms, or the parties not abiding by the terms of the MOU, will render the settlement without any effect.

The court has preliminarily approved the terms of the proposed settlement and claims forms have been mailed to all affected members of the class.

A final hearing has been scheduled for March 19, 2008, according to the company's Feb. 5, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Hyman v. Imergent, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00861-DAK," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah under Judge Dale A. Kimball.

INDIANA: BMC Faces Suit Over Revocation of Driver's Licenses------------------------------------------------------------Indiana's Bureau of Motor Vehicles faces a purported class action that seeks to prevent the possible revocation of up to 56,000 driver's licenses that don't match information in a Social Security database, WTHR-TV reports.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the suit with the Marion Superior Court on Feb. 8, 2008. Ken J. Falk, Esq., an attorney with the ACLU of Indiana filed the suit on behalf of Lyn Leone, Esq., an attorney who lives in St. Joseph County.

In recent weeks, many individuals came under the threat of losing their driver's licenses unless they reconcile discrepancies in the way their names and other key information are recorded by the state BMV and the federal Social Security Administration, according to The Indianapolis Star.

WTHR-TV reports that many of the mismatches were created by typographical errors or by people getting married and changing their last names.

The BMV recently said that when it announced the errors, it had sent warning letters to about 206,000 people in Indiana. All those affected by the mismatches were notified in November 2007, and again a month later. The BMV wanted the discrepancies cleared up by Jan. 31, 2008.

Though many of the cases already have been resolved, the ACLU pushed through with the lawsuit, seeking an injunction to make sure no licenses are revoked without hearings.

LEGAL AID: Morrison & Foerster Files Fake Legal Aid Scheme Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------Law firm Morrison & Foerster LLP has brought suit with the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against several Colorado entities and individuals allegedly engaged in a nationwide attempt to defraud consumers of legal services. The case is being brought on behalf of Colorado Legal Services and Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, Inc., both non-profit agencies that provide free civil legal services to indigent residents of their respective states.

Named defendants include Legal Aid National Services, which does business as LANS Corp. of Aurora, Colorado, along with more than a dozen other entities with similarly deceptive names, including Legal Aid National Paralegal Services Division, Inc., Legal Aid Low Cost Services Inc., and Legal Aid Services LLC. Also named are several individuals, some of whom are reportedly convicted felons.

The complaint is an action for trademark infringement, false advertising, unfair competition, racketeering, the unauthorized practice of law, and violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and common law claims under Colorado, and Texas law.

According to the complaint, the defendants purport to offer legal services through a so-called "attorney division" in 27 states, including California, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, Ohio, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Oregon, Maryland, North Carolina and Texas. They also claim to offer paralegal services in all states except Alaska.

CLS and TRLA are attempting to help a number of individuals who contracted with various defendant organizations and claim to have received "inadequate or incomplete services" -– and often no service at all.

Representative Colorado Victims Demand for $800

Among those victimized in Colorado include Simone Jones, who went in person to a LANS office in Denver and requested an attorney to help her obtain spousal support from her husband, who resides in Illinois. Despite her payment of $475, LANS failed to file or serve any of the divorce or support documents for Ms. Jones. As a result, her husband was able to file and receive a decree from an Illinois court.

Another Denver-area resident, Karen Harris, contacted LANS through the Yellow Pages, after her husband fell ill and the couple fell behind on their mortgage. Ms. Harris also went in person to LANS offices in Colorado, to discuss bankruptcy and avoiding foreclosure on her home. LANS allegedly demanded $800, $748 of which Ms. Harris paid in installments. LANS did not prepare or file any bankruptcy documents or provide services of any kind for Ms. Harris, the complaint alleges. Then, after another request for an additional "$30 retaining fee," LANS transferred her case to someone who claimed that his "hands were tied" because LANS had not, in turn, paid him. Ms. Harris faces imminent foreclosure on her home.

Texas Victims -- 411 Call Leads to Nowhere

The Texas victims include Kristy Matthijetz, of Travis County, who was served with divorce papers by her husband's family while he was in the hospital receiving treatment for a brain tumor. Calling the local number for "Legal Aid, Inc." in the phone book, she was allegedly told to wire $525 in order to be assigned to an attorney who would represent her in proceedings beginning the next day. After the lawyer failed to show up in court, Ms. Matthijetz lost custody of her daughter for two weeks. She is now represented by TRLA on her divorce and custody matters.

Another woman, Isela Caldera of El Paso, sought to help her father legally adopt his granddaughter after the child's mother, Isela's sister, died. Ms. Caldera obtained the local number for "Legal Aid" by dialing 411. The number she was given was actually for LANS Corp. According to the complaint, the Calderas were told that Legal Aid was no longer free, and now required payment of a "percentage fee." Ms. Caldera provided her check card number and paid a "reduced rate" of $415. She has not heard from anyone at LANS Corp. since September 2007, when she says she was told the adoption papers would be filed. In fact, no papers were ever filed, and Mr. Caldera still does not have legal custody of his granddaughter. TRLA is currently trying to place this case with a private attorney.

Attorneys from Morrison & Foerster fear there may be many more victims of this scheme. According to the complaint, "Defendants have been engaged in the foregoing practices for more than a decade and continually reinvent themselves and their business names in an attempt to defraud and confuse more consumers."

Describing the lucrative enterprise operated by the defendants, the complaint adds, "In papers filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado, witnesses claimed that [one named individual] alone expected to earn $1.7 million from Defendants' fraudulent businesses."

"The actions alleged in this case are highly disturbing," said Morrison & Foerster New York litigation partner Alex Lawrence, one of several attorneys at the firm working on the case pro bono. "Our complaint makes clear that not only have defendants hijacked the names of legitimate legal services providers, but they’ve done so in order to target individuals who are already vulnerable, facing some of the most difficult personal crises of their lives."

"Organizations such as Colorado Legal Services and Texas RioGrande Legal Aid offer skilled, dedicated attorneys and paralegals delivering much-needed services for clients in need, many with limited financial resources and often facing critical personal and family emergencies," added Jamie Levitt, another Morrison & Foerster litigation partner handling the case. "The fact that poor and unsophisticated individuals assumed they were dealing with a genuine provider of legal services means that agencies such as CLS and TRLA have also been victimized in this shell game. We hope this new action exposes the wolf behind sheep's clothing."

"For over 80 years, Colorado Legal Services has served the legal needs of poor people in Colorado," said Jon Asher, Executive Director of Colorado Legal Services. "Colorado Legal Services joined in this action because we think it is important to investigate and protect low-income people from sham legal services providers."

According to TRLA's Director of Communications, Cindy Martinez, "Texas RioGrande Legal Aid is proud to have partnered with Morrison & Foerster to investigate Legal Aid National Services and the exploitation of Texans in need. With their help, TRLA will continue to provide quality legal services to the poor and ensure that all Texans have access to justice."

In addition to damages and the disgorgement of the defendants' "ill-gotten gains," plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief prohibiting defendants from both the unauthorized practice of law, and the use of a name that in any way suggests association with a legitimate legal aid organization.

The current complaint comes on the heels of a similar case filed by Morrison & Foerster last year, challenging what the firm alleged was a brazen fake "legal aid" scam targeting elderly and often ill Californians facing eviction from their homes. The chief defendant in that case goes by the name "Legal Center for Legal Aid."

In addition to Mr. Lawrence and Ms. Levitt, Steven M. Kaufmann, who chairs the firm's 500 lawyer Litigation Department, is representing TRLA. Sara D. Brin, Kelvin D. Chen, and Jonathan C. Rothberg, associates from New York, and Nicole K. Serfoss, associate from the Denver office, are also part of the litigation team. Representing Colorado Legal Services from Faegre & Benson are Natalie Hanlon-Leh and Jared Briant.

About Morrison & Foerster

With more than one thousand lawyers in eighteen offices around the world, Morrison & Foerster offers clients comprehensive, global legal services in business and litigation. The firm is distinguished by its unsurpassed expertise in finance, life sciences, and technology, its legendary litigation skills, and an unrivaled reach across the Pacific Rim, particularly in Japan and China.

MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Court Fixes April 4 Settlement Hearing ----------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Northern Division) has certified as a class action the lawsuit titled "In Re Martek Biosciences Corp. (Ticker: MATK) Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. MJG 05-1224," filed on behalf of individuals who purchased or acquired Martek common stock during the period from Dec. 9, 2004, to April 28, 2005.

Moreover, a settlement for US$6,000,000 has been proposed.

A hearing will be held before Judge Marvin J. Garbis at 10:00 a.m. on April 4, 2008, to determine whether:

1. the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate;

2. the plaintiffs' co-lead counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved;

3. the lead plaintiffs should be reimbursed for their reasonable costs and expenses (including lost wages) directly related to their representation of the Class in the litigation; and

4. the claims against the defendants should be dismissed with prejudice.

According to a Class Action Reporter report on Dec. 12, 2007, the settlement will result in the dismissal of the claimsagainst Martek and all other defendants, subject to final courtapproval.

Members of the Class who have not yet received the full printed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and Proof of Claim and Release form may obtain copies of these documents by visiting http://www.MartekSecuritiesSettlement.comor by contacting:

Accomplished claim forms must be submitted no later than May 15, 2008. Deadline for submission of objections and requests for exclusion from the Class is on March 21, 2008.

Case Background

On Nov. 18, 2005, a consolidated amended class action complaintwas filed with the U.S. District Court for the District ofMaryland on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock during the period beginning Dec. 9, 2004, and ending April 28, 2005.

The consolidated complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and violations of Section 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

The consolidated complaint alleges generally that the companyand certain individual defendants made false or misleading public statements and failed to disclose material facts regarding its business and prospects in public statements the company made or failed to make during the period and, in the case of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 claims, in the company's January 2005 prospectus.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, which the court dismissed on June 14, 2006. The court then entered a scheduling order for further proceedings in the case.

Subsequently, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of theclaims arising under the Securities Act of 1933, leaving onlythe alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the action.

On Sept. 20, 2006, the court approved the dismissal of the 1933Act claims. Additionally, on Sept. 21, 2006, the court approvedthe parties' stipulation certifying a class to prosecute claimsunder the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Subject to certain exceptions, the stipulated class generallyconsists of all persons who either purchased Martek common stockduring the class period of Dec. 9, 2004, through April 28, 2005,inclusive or otherwise acquired, without purchasing, Martekcommon stock during the class period from a person or entity whopurchased those particular shares of Martek stock during theclass period.

The suit is "In re Martek Biosciences Corp. SecuritiesLitigation, Civil Action No. MJG 05-1224," filed in the U.S.District Court for the District of Maryland under Judge MarvinJ. Garbis.

MEDTRONIC INC: Kirby McInerney Lead Counsel in Securities Suit--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota has appointed Kirby McInerney, LLP to serve as lead counsel in the securities class action lawsuit against Medtronic, Inc.

KM's client, a public pension fund, was appointed to serve as lead plaintiff.

The Complaint, filed in 2007, charges Medtronic and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 18, 2007).

Medtronic is engaged in the medical technology business.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failedto disclose and misrepresented the following material adversefacts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregardedby them:

(1) that the Company had received a substantial and increased number of reports of death and serious injuries caused by fractures in its Sprint Fidelis defibrillator leads;

(2) that the Company had failed to suspend distribution of its Sprint Fidelis defibrillator leads in the face of such mounting safety concerns;

(3) that the Company, as such safety concerns were revealed, would be forced to suspend distribution of its Sprint Fidelis defibrillator leads;

(4) that the FDA would consider this "removal action" to be a "medical device recall";

(5) that this medical device recall would have a significant financial impact on the Company's financial statements in subsequent quarters;

(6) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and

(7) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its financial well-being and future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On October 15, 2007, the Company shocked investors when itdisclosed that it had received a significant, and an increased,number of adverse reports about the Company's Sprint Fidelisdefibrillator leads, which were attributable to manufacturingdefects and resulted in significant safety concerns.

The Company admitted that it had identified hundreds ofmalfunctions, serious injuries, and five patient deaths where aSprint Fidelis lead fracture "may have been a possible or likelycontributing factor."

Additionally, the Company reported that it had suspended thedistribution of its Sprint Fidelis leads, and instructedphysicians to stop implanting the leads and return all unusedproducts. Subsequently, the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")issued a notice stating that it considered such a product"removal action" to be a "medical device recall," which the FDAterms as "an action taken when a medical device is defective,when it could be a risk to health, or when it is both defectiveand a risk to health."

On this news, the Company's shares declined $6.33 per share, or11.2 percent, to close on October 15, 2007 at $50.00 per share,on unusually heavy trading volume.

METRIS COS: March 25 Fairness Hearing Set for $7.5M Settlement--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota will hold a fairness hearing on March 25, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. for the proposed $7,500,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re Metris Companies Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-CV-3677 JMR/FLN."

The hearing will be held before Judge James M. Rosenbaum at the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, 202 U.S. Courthouse, 300 S. 4th Street, in Minneapolis, MN 55415.

Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be made on or before Feb. 28, 2008. Deadline for the submission of claims forms is on May 9, 2008.

Case Background

From Nov. 5, 2001 through July 17, 2002, Metris was a financial services company that issued credit cards through its wholly owned subsidiary, Direct Merchants Credit Bank, N.A.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants Metris, its then Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board Ronald N. Zebeck, and its then Vice Chairman David Wesselink, intentionally or recklessly misled investors through a series of material misrepresentations and omissions concerning the business, operations and financial condition of Metris in violation of the Federal Securities laws.

These misstatements and omissions concerned, among other things:

-- expectations for growth and profitability at Metris in 2002, and earnings guidance related thereto;

-- the negative impact an examination by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency would have, and was having, on Metris' operations, financial condition and earnings; and

The lawsuit further alleges that Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions caused the price of Metris securities to be artificially inflated, which resulted in monetary damage to Class Members when Metris began to disclose its true financial and operational condition.

The first securities class action complaint was filed in this matter on Sept. 20, 2002.

On March 5, 2003, the Court issued and filed an Order Consolidating Actions, Appointing Lead Plaintiff, and Approving Lead Plaintiff's Selection of Lead Counsel and Liaison Counsel.

On April 9, 2003, Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss the CAC, and on July 14, 2003, after extensive briefing and oral argument, the Court issued an Order denying Defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety. Defendants answered the CAC on Aug. 18, 2003.

Thereafter, the parties engaged in extensive class and merits discovery, as well as a significant amount of motion practice. This discovery was extremely complicated and contentious, involving many motions to compel and hearings before the Court.

The plaintiffs served, and responded to, multiple sets of document requests, a myriad of interrogatories, and requests for admissions. The plaintiffs also served numerous third-partysubpoenas.

As a result of the wide-ranging discovery efforts, the plaintiffs obtained and analyzed hundreds of thousands of pages of documents produced by the Defendants and third parties.

The parties also deposed a total of nineteen percipient and expert witnesses in locations throughout the U.S.

On Jan. 16, 2004, while discovery was continuing, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. Following briefing, the Court heard oral argument, and on Nov. 30, 2004, Magistrate Judge Franklin Noel issued his Report and Recommendation recommending that the class be certified and that Michael Brody Pettit be appointed class representative.

On Dec. 10, 2004, the Defendants filed their objection to the Report. Following briefing on the issue, Chief Judge Rosenbaum issued an Order denying the Defendants' request for oral argument and granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

On Jan. 21, 2005, the Defendants filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit their petition for permission to take an interlocutory appeal of Chief Judge Rosenbaum's grant of class certification. The Eighth Circuit issued its Judgment denying Defendants' Petition on Feb. 4, 2005.

Following the completion of discovery, on Sept. 21, 2005, the Defendants filed two separate motions for summary judgment. On Oct. 21, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Summary Judgment Motions, and on Oct. 28, 2005, the Defendants filed their reply briefs.

On May 24, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Eighth Circuit.

Shortly thereafter, the Parties agreed to attend mediation before Eighth Circuit Settlement Director John Martin and, on July 26, 2006, the Parties, including the Court appointed Class Representative, attended a full-day settlement conference in St. Louis, Missouri.

While the Parties were unable to settle the Action on that date, counsel for the Parties continued to negotiate and on or about Aug. 21, 2006, the Parties reached an agreement in principle for the Settlement of this Action.

MONEY MANAGERS: Investor Lawsuit Over Fund Liquidation Looms------------------------------------------------------------Barrister James MacFarlane is preparing to sue Money Managers on behalf of investors over the liquidation of a group of funds that left 7,000 investors owed NZ$457 million, The Dominion Post reports.

Mr. MacFarlane, who is working with several law firms, told Dominion Post that the class action would be to recover losses from the First Step funds that were closed in October 2006.

First Step, the report recounts, was launched in 2000. First Step hit problems when changes in tax legislation introduced by Finance Minister Michael Cullen in 2004 cut the products' growth as its tax efficiency fell. In November 2006, six trusts which came under Money Managers' Five Steps umbrella were wound up because more investors were quitting the trusts instead of joining them.

So far, the company has paid out NZ$186.5 million, Dominion Post says, but in December, investors received annual reports and a letter from the trustee company stating that NZ$38 million had been "written into the accounts," and that it was unlikely the amount would be returned to the trust and to investors. The annual reports also stated that an additional NZ$108 million was under "fundamental uncertainty."

According to Dominion Post, Mr. MacFarlane declined to provide detail on the causes of action, but hinted that they concerned breach of duty and "deficiencies in the management and supervision of the collective investment," arising partly from conflicts of interest. He also refused to disclose if Five Steps trustee company Calibre Asset Services would be included in the class action, but said all parties connected to the scheme had been the subject to a "detailed analysis."

Mr. MacFarlane, the report notes, also hinted that legal issues would be addressed on both sides of the Tasman, saying the issues fell "squarely" within the jurisdiction of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, the Security Commission's Australian counterpart.

He declined to comment on how many investors he represented or when court papers would be filed, the report relates.

Money Managers spokesperson David Peach told Dominion Post that the allegations are a "nonsense," and said that investors had not lost money and funds managers were in the process of realizing assets. He added that the funds offered were under a registered prospectus and that the laws have been complied with.

Mr. Peach also assured all investors that everybody is working towards getting as much of the funds as they can back to them.

MONRO MUFFLER: Faces Suit in N.Y. Alleging Wage, Hour Violations----------------------------------------------------------------Monro Muffler Brake, Inc., faces a purported class action filed with the Supreme Court of the State of New York that accuses it of violating wage and hour laws.

The suit, filed on Dec. 19, 2007, is alleging that the Company violated federal and state wage and hour laws relating to the calculation and payment of overtime applicable to certain information technology and other headquarters employees. The company considers these employees exempt from such laws.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages or injunctive relief, or both, according to the company's Feb. 5, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 29, 2007.

NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Files Countersuit in Fuel Surcharge Action--------------------------------------------------------------Northwest Airlines Corp. filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York (Manhattan) against the plaintiffs in a class action, saying that they are violating the so-called automatic stay by continuing a suit commenced before the airline's Chapter 11 filing, Bloomberg News reports.

The class action suit was filed with the federal court in California, titled "Casteel v. Air New Zealand," seeking damages for improper fuel surcharges.

Contending the class action is based on fares chargedbefore its bankruptcy, Northwest says the suit was halted automatically by provisions in bankruptcy law that stop lawsuits outside bankruptcy court and forcing all claims to be decided in bankruptcy court, Bloomberg notes.

When Northwest emerged from Chapter 11 in May (concluding a 21-month reorganization), the preclusion of lawsuits based on pre-bankruptcy claims continued, the carrier argues.

According to Bloomberg, Northwest's lawsuit to stop the classaction in California gives U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Allan Gropper the right to decide to what extent the pre-bankruptcy class-action lawsuit is frozen if it pertains to ticket price policies in effect during and after the reorganization.

OHIO: Judge Gives Sex Offenders Time to Oppose Reclassifications ----------------------------------------------------------------Judge Patricia Gaughan of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio extended the deadline for sex offenders to challenge their reclassification under a law that took effect this year.

Specifically, Judge Gaughan stayed the community notification provision in the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act for those who weren't subject to it under the old law.

Under the law, offenders are automatically classified in one of three tiers by their crime without considering the likelihood of re-offending.

Judge Gaughan made the ruling in one of two class actions filed by sex offenders or on their behalf. In general, they claim that the law denies them their constitutional right because their classification can be changed without a hearing.

Recently, two purported class actions have been filed over certain provisions in the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act. One lawsuit was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, while the other was filed with the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court.

The Office of the Ohio Public Defender was among those who filedthe federal lawsuit against the state attorney-general's office,and several county sheriffs.

The suit over the new law was brought on behalf of allindividuals in the state whose sex offender classificationstatus has been changed by the new law.

It seeks a temporary court order preventing the new law frombeing enforced until those affected by it can havereclassification hearings and that the 60-day deadline forchallenging reclassifications be suspended.

It also wants to prevent community notification from being imposed on people retroactively.

Hamilton County Litigation

The case in Hamilton County was filed by the Ohio Justice and Policy Center against the State of Ohio, claiming that newrequirements is unconstitutional, (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 30, 2008).

The local legal watchdog group filed the suit on behalf of convicted sex offender Jerome Sewell, and another unnamed female sex offender. They are seeking to stop the reclassification under the law.

PANTRY INC: Seeks Dismissal of Multiple "Hot Fuel" Lawsuits-----------------------------------------------------------The Pantry, Inc., is seeking for the dismissal of several purported class actions over motor fuel that was greater than 60 degrees Fahrenheit at the time of sale.

Since the beginning of fiscal 2007, over 45 class-action lawsuits have been filed with federal courts across the country against numerous companies in the petroleum industry. Major petroleum companies and significant retailers in the industry have been named as defendants in these lawsuits.

Pursuant to an order entered by the Joint Panel on Multi-District Litigation, all of the cases against the numerous companies in the petroleum industry, including the seven in which Pantry Inc. was named, have been or will be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas where the cases will be consolidated for all pre-trial proceedings.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuits generally allege that they are retail purchasers who received less motor fuel than the defendants agreed to deliver because the defendants measured the amount of motor fuel they delivered in non-temperature adjusted gallons which, at higher temperatures, contain less energy. These cases seek, among other relief, an order requiring the defendants to install temperature adjusting equipment on their retail motor fuel dispensing devices.

In certain of the cases, including some of the cases in which Pantry is named, the plaintiffs also have alleged that because defendants pay fuel taxes based on temperature adjusted 60 degree gallons, but allegedly collect taxes from consumers in non-temperature adjusted gallons, defendants receive a greater amount of tax from consumers than they paid on the same gallon of fuel.

The plaintiffs in these cases seek, among other relief, recovery of excess taxes paid and punitive damages.

The defendants have filed motions to dismiss all cases for failure to state a claim, which were heard by the court on Jan. 11, 2008, according to the company's Feb. 5, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 27, 2007.

QANTAS AIRWAYS: Flight Centre Backs Out from Price-Fixing Suit--------------------------------------------------------------Australian travel retailer Flight Centre Ltd (ASX:FLT) has pulled out of an AU$80 million (US$72.3 million) class-action lawsuit against six international airlines, including Qantas Airways (ASX:QAN), over an alleged underpayment of commission fees.

The Herald Sun recounts that law firm Slater & Gordon launched the action on behalf of travel agents in December 2006 in an attempt to recover commission on fuel surcharges.

Slater & Gordon asserts that the six airlines have short-changed travel agents by up to AU$80 million by failing to include fuel surcharges when calculating agents' fees. It also alleges that the airlines breached the Trade Practices Act by forcing travel agents to record fuel surcharges as a tax rather than part of the fare.

Moreover, in November 2007, Slater & Gordon accused Qantas, which could account for AU$50 million of the claim, of threatening to cut commissions of agents participating in the class action, Herald Sun relates. The law firm subsequently sought an injunction in the Federal Court preventing the airline from making any threats during commercial negotiations.

Flight Centre Managing Director Graham Turner said that the travel center had advised Slater & Gordon that it was "unlikely" to participate in the legal action because of "commercial considerations" and would instead hold direct discussions with the airlines, Trading Markets notes.

Mr. Turner expressed his belief, though, that fuel surcharges should be incorporated into ticket prices rather than disguised as taxes and treated as a separate cost.

Herald Sun points out that travel agents have been engaged in a battle with airlines over their commission since the fuel surcharge was introduced as a temporary measure in 2004 to offset increased oil prices. Almost 85% of the AU$17 billion in international tickets sold in Australia between 2004 and 2006 came through travel agents.

The suit was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois by Paula Appleby on Jan. 10, 2008, under the caption, "Appleby v. Sprint Nextel Corporation et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-00023-JPG-DGW."

In general, the suit accuses defendants of defrauding customers by extending contracts without "adequate notice," or else by doing so without "obtaining meaningful consent."

The 23-page complaint states, "Defendants have misled and deceived consumers by extending consumers' contracts for up to two years without providing adequate notice or obtaining meaningful consent to a contract extension when consumers made small changes to their telephone service, such as adding extra minutes or purchasing a new telephone; when they responded to solicitations by defendants for additional products and services; and when the consumer received 'courtesy discounts."

The suit is "Appleby v. Sprint Nextel Corporation et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-00023-JPG-DGW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Judge J. Phil Gilbert presiding.

TEXAS: Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Lawsuit v. City of Palestine----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, that dismisses the class action, "L.D. Jones v. City of Palestine, Case No. 6:06-cv-00299-JKG."

The suit was filed with the 3rd Judicial District Court in Anderson County, Texas, on June 15, 2006, by L.D. Jones, on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated individuals.

The suit challenges the fee charged by the City of Palestine, Texas for residential wastewater between Sept. 12, 1994, and Oct. 1, 2005. In it, Mr. Jones alleged that the City of Palestine passed an ordinance that clearly established a flat-rate charge.

On July 5, 2006, the City of Palestine, removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas based on federal question jurisdiction.

On Aug. 18, 2006, Mr. Jones moved for partial summary judgment. On Sept. 29, 2006, the City of Palestine also moved for summaryjudgment. The parties filed the appropriate responses and replies.

On Jan. 31, 2007, the district court denied Mr. Jones' motion, granted the City's motion, and entered final judgment in favor of the City.

Mr. Jones later appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit, though, ruled in the City's favor by upholding the District Court's ruling.

The suit is "Jones v. City of Palestine, Case No. 6:06-cv-00299-JKG," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Judith K. Guthrie presiding.

TUESDAY MORNING: No Trial Date Set for Labor Calif. Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------No trial date has been set yet for the remaining complaint in a consolidated labor-related class action filed against Tuesday Morning Corp. in California.

During 2001 and 2002, the company was named as a defendant in three complaints filed with the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Los Angeles. These three complaints were subsequently consolidated into one action.

The plaintiffs are seeking to certify a statewide class made up of some current and former employees who claim to be owed compensation for overtime wages, penalties and interest. They are also seeking attorney's fees and costs.

In October 2003, the company entered into a settlement agreement with a sub-class of these plaintiffs, consisting of managers-in-training and management trainees, which was paid in November 2005.

There is no trial date set for the remaining complaint, according to the company's Feb. 8, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007.

UNITED STATES: Officials Sued Over U.S.-Mexico Security Fence-------------------------------------------------------------U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and U.S. Customs and Border Protection Active Executive Director of Asset Management Robert F. Janson were sued by landowners along the U.S.-Mexico border in an effort to keep surveyors off their land.

In an attempt to curb the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico and other countries to the south, the federal government plans to build 370 miles of security fencing and 300 miles of vehicle barriers along the U.S. side of the border by the end of this year, according to a report by James Osborne of The Monitor.

In December 2007, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff sent out letters warning some 135 landowners to allow federal surveyors on their land or face litigation.

While some have since complied, the vast majority continue to hold out, bent on keeping the government from building the fence across their properties, according to Laura Keehner, a spokeswoman with the Department of Homeland Security tells The Monitor.

One of those who are holding out is El Calaboz resident Eloisa G. Tamez, who recently appeared before the U.S. District Court for the Southern of District of Texas to fight a federal land condemnation lawsuit filed to temporarily use 1.04 acres of land that has been in her family's possession for hundreds of years.Team 4 News reports that Ms. Tamez, and neighboring landowner Benito J. Garcia, are the plaintiffs in the recently filed class action they filed against the federal officials. Both are represented by attorney Abner Burnett, Esq. of the South Texas Civil Rights Project, and Carlos Holguin of the Center for Human Rights.

The class action was filed on Feb. 6, 2008, under the caption, "Tamez v. Chertoff, Case No. 1:2008cv00055." It was assigned to Judge Andrew S. Hanen.

Generally, the suit contends that defendants ignored a recent congressional mandate that repealed the mandatory construction of 70 miles of border fence in the Rio Grande Valley. It also contends that federal officials did not follow laws requiring them to work with property owners.

Furthermore, the suit claims that federal officials did not hold any of its 18 town hall meetings regarding the construction of the border wall in the Rio Grande Valley or other border communities in Texas, according to Team 4 News.

The suit is "Tamez v. Chertoff, Case No. 1:2008cv00055," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Judge Andrew S. Hanen presiding.

W.R. GRACE: Court Sides with Grace in 401(K) Plan Suit------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts recently held that W.R. Grace and Co. and State Street Bank and Trust Co. did not breach their fiduciary duties when making the decision to divest Grace's 401(k) plan of the Grace Stock Fund, Rebecca Moore writes for the Plan Adviser.

According to the report, Judge William G. Young agreed with Grace and State Street that the current market price of Grace stock was only one of the factors they needed to consider to meet the prudent person standard of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. "ERISA does not require that a fiduciary maximize the value of investments provided to participants or follow a detailed step by step process to analyze investment options," Judge Young wrote in his opinion.

Judge Young said that the relevant question in the case was whether State Street took into account all relevant information in performing its fiduciary duty under ERISA. And he concluded that State Street did consider various factors including: the current stock price, the Grace bankruptcy, the financial performance and outlook of the company and its industry sector, Grace's potential asbestos liability, and Securities and Exchange Commission requirements.

Ms. Moore recounts that the plaintiffs had argued that State Street overlooked the availability of other less risky investment options that could provide diversification and compensate for the high risk of keeping the Grace Stock Fund. However, noting that Grace engaged State Street and charged it with the single goal of determining the appropriateness of the retention of Grace stock, Judge Young rejected the argument since State Street had no discretion to make decisions about the remaining investment options still available for the plan.

The plaintiffs recognized that in other company stock cases, courts found it was prudent to keep the company stock even though the price dropped. However, Judge Young said that the plaintiffs in other cases often argued that plan fiduciaries should have dropped the stock investment because they had knowledge that the price was likely to drop and that is what State Street did in this case.

The plaintiffs also pointed out that Grace's financial results were positive and it publicly announced it expected to survive reorganization. The court, however, concluded that State Street's analysis showed "a potential for loss of value of the Grace stock comparable to knowledge of an impeding collapse."

Judge Young also denied the plaintiffs' claim of self dealing on the part of State Street for lack of "any specific proof that State Street managed plan assets for a purpose other than the benefit of the plan and its participants." Since the Court found that State Street did not commit a breach of its fiduciary duties, Judge Young wrote, Grace prevails in the case as well since the claims against it are derivative of the claims against State Street.

Case Background

In 2003, a member of the Grace's Investments and Benefits Committee informed plan participants that Grace fiduciaries were "seriously consider[ing]" naming an independent fiduciary to operate the Grace Stock Fund in order to avoid any potential conflicts of interest arising out of the reorganization plan in Grace's bankruptcy. The committee later selected State Street to serve as the independent fiduciary.

The goal of the delegation to State Street was to determine whether the fund's retention or sale of Grace stock was appropriate. The investment guidelines included with its engagement letter noted that State Street could sell the Grace stock only if it determined that the continued holding of the stock was inconsistent with ERISA. State Street retained a financial adviser and a legal adviser for the decision.

After determining, in February 2004, that the Plan's inclusion of Grace stock was inconsistent with ERISA and, therefore, imprudent, State Street gave Grace notice of its decision to begin selling the plan's Grace stock. After State Street sold the stock -- at a price higher than market value -- a group of participants filed a class action lawsuit against Grace, State Street, and other plan fiduciaries claiming, among other things, a breach of fiduciary duty.

The case is "Bunch v. W.R. Grace & Co., Case No. 04-11380-WGY," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.